International Journal of Information Management 59 (2021) 102344

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Research Article

Assimilation of business intelligence: The effect of external pressures and

top leaders commitment during pandemic crisis
Akriti Chaubey a, *, Chandan Kumar Sahoo b
a
School of Management, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Rourkela, 769008, India
b
Human Resource Management, School of Management, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Rourkela, 769008, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The business intelligence (BI) has been often touted as a game-changer especially during the pandemic crisis.
Business intelligence Although most managers are familiar with BI and agree that, it should be operationalized across their organi­
Institutional theory zations. The BI is not well assimilated throughout adopting organizations. Rooted in institutional and upper
Business intelligence assimilation
echelon theories, this study proposes a theoretical model aimed toward explaining BI assimilation. We surveyed
Leadership
174 respondents occupying leadership positions from174 auto-components manufacturing firms in India to
COVID-19
gather data. The findings suggest that normative and mimetic (but not coercive) factors significantly influence
top leader’s commitment to the BI initiatives. We found that the commitment of the top leaders influences the
assimilation of BI via acceptance and routinization. Our study is an attempt to address the previous research calls
related to BI assimilation. The findings of the study inform the information management scholars via theory-
based research on phenomena related to post-adoption BI diffusion during a pandemic crisis. Practitioners can
utilize the results of our study to design their policies that help assimilate BI such that forecasted benefits can be
fully realized during an uncertain time.

1. Introduction
“Necessity has been the mother of invention in the response to the COVID-
19 pandemic, triggering many an innovation, often without the luxury of
time to test these makeshift solutions to pressing problems. But there is
much to be learned from times of crisis for times of plenty” (Harris,
Bhatti, Buckley, & Sharma, 2020, p. 814)
The pandemic due to COVID-19 has seriously affected the small and
medium enterprises (Dwivedi et al., 2020; Ivanov & Dolgui, 2020;
Papadopoulos, Baltas, & Balta, 2020; Remko, 2020). Many organisations
have significantly exploited the business intelligence (BI) capability to
stay afloat in this unprecedented time (Kummitha, 2020; Queiroz, Tal­
lon, Sharma, & Coltman, 2018; Ranjan & Foropon, 2021). It is well
understood that BI plays an important role in improving business per­
formance (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Koh & Gunasekaran, 2006; Pramanik,
Mondal, & Haldar, 2020). In a recent report published by Sisence (The
State of BI and Business Analytics Report, 2020) has highlighted sig­
nificant rise in the use of BI and analytics in response to COVID-19 crisis
(Queiroz, Ivanov, Dolgui, & Wamba, 2020). Although there are
numerous BI success stories reported in the academic literature (Olszak,
2016), there remain many skeptics who often criticize the role and
impact of BI (see, Božič & Dimovski, 2019) during pandemic crisis (Lee
& Trimi, 2020). Although, the failure stories of the BI has gathered
significant attention from the academic community (Tian et al., 2015)
and in many instances, predicted benefits of BI are not realized (Aud­
zeyeva & Hudson, 2016). Furthermore, BI is often inconsistently oper­
ationalized across different contexts (see, Chen & Lin, 2020) and is often
implemented based on prescriptive and not participative assumptions.
Despite of rich body of literature on BI, the existing literature has largely
remained silent on how BI is assimilated across the organisation (Elba­
shir, Collier, & Davern, 2008; Fosso Wamba & Queiroz, 2020).
While there is a rich body of literature on factors influencing the
success of BI implementation (Ramakrishnan, Jones, & Sidorova, 2012;
Wang, 2014; López-Robles et al., 2019), studies aimed toward explain­
ing BI assimilation are limited (Ahmad & Hossain, 2018; Shao, 2019).
The previous studies have noted that the adoption and implementation,
are often considered as the foundation of the diffusion of any techno­
logical innovation. In any organization (Dubey et al., 2018; Hazen,
Overstreet, & Cegielski, 2012), and the full benefits may not be well
realized by the organization until and unless the technological

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: akritichaubey25@gmail.com (A. Chaubey), sahooc@nitrkl.ac.in (C.K. Sahoo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102344
Received 30 November 2020; Received in revised form 5 March 2021; Accepted 5 March 2021
Available online 11 March 2021
0268-4012/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Chaubey and C.K. Sahoo
innovation is fully assimilated (Dubey et al., 2018; Dwivedi, Rana,
Jeyaraj, Clement, & Williams, 2019; Hazen et al., 2012; Williams,
Dwivedi, Lal, & Schwarz, 2009). Based on Purvis, Sambamurthy, and
Zmud (2001) and Hazen et al. (2012) definitions, we define BI assimi­
lation as the extent to which BI philosophy diffuses across organizational
processes and activities. Hence, the key objective of BI
post-implementation activities is to assimilate the philosophy and
practices across business routines such that organization achieve
maximum benefits of BI implementation (Nam, Lee, & Lee, 2019).
Moreover, how organization assimilate during pandemic crisis is not
well understood. The purpose of this study is to investigate the means
through which BI is assimilated throughout organizations during
pandemic crisis. To address our research objective, we posit two guiding
research questions as:
RQ1: What are the antecedents of BI assimilation?
RQ2: How can firms assimilate BI across their organizations during
pandemic crisis?
Kar and Dwivedi (2020) argued in favour of building theory that may
help organization to understand how the use of big data analytics and
business intelligence capability may enhance performance during un­
certain environment. Drawing on institutional theory (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983) and upper echelon theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), we
develop a theoretical model to explain how the external institutional
forces and the top leader’s commitment influence BI assimilation within
an organization. Extending the findings of Liang, Saraf, Hu, and Xue
(2007) and Nam et al. (2019), we submit that top leader’s commitment
plays a pivotal role in channelizing the external institutional pressures
into BI assimilation. Furthermore, we extend the work of Wang (2014)
and Ain, Vaia, DeLone, and Waheed (2019) by studying assimilation
instead of adoption or implementation. Hazen et al. (2012) have
attempted to explain the journey from adoption to assimilation using
two intermediary stages, namely acceptance and routinization.
Following previous arguments we assume the role of external pres­
sures (Liang et al., 2007) and top leader’s (internal human agents) play
significant roles in the acceptance, routinization and assimilation of BI,
we submit that the role of contextual assimilation factors remains
largely unexplored. We therefore propose a BI assimilation framework
for pandemic crisis, grounded in organizational theories, that offers two
unique contributions to the literature (Pan & Zhang, 2020). Firstly, we
examine BI assimilation using two organizational theories (i.e. institu­
tional theory and upper echelon theory). Secondly, we investigate to
what extent top leader’s commitment mediates the relationship between
institutional pressures and BI acceptance. This research thus provides a
new perspective on BI assimilation.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows. In the next
section, we discuss the theoretical framework and research hypotheses.
Second section focuses on the development of our research model and
hypotheses. Third section focuses on the research method. In this sec­
tion, we discuss our questionnaire development, sampling design and
data collection strategy. In the fourth section, we present our data
analysis and results. In the fifth section, we present our discussion sec­
tion based on our research findings. In this section, we have further
discussed our contributions to the theory. In the same section, we further
discuss our findings in context to the practice. We further outlined our
limitations of our study and further noted future research directions.
Finally, we concluded our study.
2. Research model and hypotheses
Our research model is grounded in extant literature. The foundation
of the model is comprised of two elements, namely, institutional theory
and upper echelon theory. Kauppi (2013) suggests that “…operations
management (OM) researchers and practitioners tend to view their work in
terms of the logic of rational efficiency, which has been questioned by
organizational theorists arguing that rational action is always embedded in a
social context…” (p. 1318). Hence, institutional theory may provide an
2
International Journal of Information Management 59 (2021) 102344
alternative perspective to examine the complexity of BI assimilation
(BI-ASM).
Liang et al. (2007) developed a model to explain the assimilation of
ERP using institutional theory. Our model attempts to extend Liang et al.
(2007) work by examining BI assimilation. Furthermore, consistent with
the work of Dubey et al. (2018), top leaders commitment is proposed to
translate external forces (institutional pressures) into desired assimila­
tion of BI. In our study, we draw from the extensive literature on insti­
tutional theory (see, Oliver, 1997; Delmas & Toffel, 2004; Colwell &
Joshi, 2013; Greenwood, Hinings, & Whetten, 2014; Dubey, Gunase­
karan, Childe, & Papadopoulos, 2019) to develop a research model that
identifies the antecedents of BI assimilation. In doing so, we seek to
address our guiding research questions. Our research model (Fig. 1) is
grounded in the proposition that institutional forces affect organiza­
tional behaviour after being mediated by the leaders. Based on previous
arguments, we have presented our research hypotheses. In the next
subsections, we further discuss these hypotheses.
2.1. Institutional theory and BI assimilation
Zhu, Kraemer, and Xu (2006) advocate for innovation assimilation,
noting that regulatory environment plays an important role. Liang et al.
(2007) further found that institutional pressures significantly affect
assimilation of ERP. Chinese firms comprise the setting of the study
conducted by Liang and colleagues, suggesting that the role of legiti­
macy in developing countries can help explain assimilation. To this end,
Li et al. (2008) argued that ERP implementation can be successful if it is
preceded by a BI focus. Drawing on these studies, we adapt the assimi­
lation concept for the BI literature.
Dubey et al. (2018) research sought to explain TQM assimilation
using three institutional factors and top management commitment. In
our current study, we attempt to examine BI assimilation using institu­
tional pressures to offer deeper insight into post-adoption processes.
Singh, Power, and Chuong (2011) suggest that theory-based explanation
enhances understanding and appreciation for standards, and provides
clarity on how standards benefits organizations In comparison to other
organization theories such as resource dependence theory (Singh et al.,
2011) and contingency theory (Sila, 2007). Dubey et al. (2018, p.2992)
argue that “the institutional theory posits that structural and behavioural
changes in the organization are driven less by competition and the desire for
efficiency, but more by the need of organizational legitimacy” (c.f DiMaggio
& Powell, 1983). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argue that the desire of
the organization to align their business strategies in the line of the
stakeholder’s expectations (i.e. legitimacy), the organization often
embrace institutional logic. We can also refer the process of seeking
legitimacy via embracing institutional logic as ‘institutional isomorphism’
(see, DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Liang et al., 2007; Kauppi, 2013; Lin,
Luo, & Luo, 2020; Zuo, Ma, & Yu, 2020). The institutional isomorphism
occurs via three stages: coercive pressure, which refers to the external
pressures resulting from government or any regulatory bodies or ex­
pectations from cultural expectations of the community or any profes­
sional associations (Liang et al., 2007). In an attempt to negate the
pressures arising from external agencies or bodies, organization develop
“coercive isomorphism” (Dubey et al., 2018). Normative pressures arise
from professionalization, which is defined by DiMaggio and Powell
(1983) as “…the collective struggle of members of an occupation to define the
conditions and methods of their work, to control the production of the future
member professionals, and to establish a cognitive base and legitimisation for
their occupational autonomy.” Organizational researchers have noted that
employee sharing similar traits (and hence normative isomorphism)
which, is often developed via professional education and training (see
DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Liang et al., 2007; Heugens & Lander, 2009;
Dubey et al., 2018; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, Blome, & Papado­
poulos, 2019; Zuo et al., 2020). Mimetic pressures refer to mimicking
actions of organizations with respect to their competitors. This is often
done because of environmental uncertainty, such as when new
A. Chaubey and C.K. Sahoo
Fig. 1. BI Assimilation Model.
technology is not well understood, organizations have struggled to
explain any degree of uncertainties or there is poor alignment of vision,
mission and goals in organizations. In such cases, organizations develop
mimetic isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In sum, institutional
theory can offer interesting perspective to understand BI assimilation.
2.1.1. Coercive pressures (CP)
Liu, Ke, Wei, Gu, and Chen (2010) argued that institutional pressures
is considered as an important driver particularly in context to the
adoption of innovation. Management scholars have increasingly argued
that the pressures resulting from the government and other bodies, are
transmitted via operational channels, affect the organization predispo­
sition towards adoption of technology (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe,
Blome et al., 2019; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, Papadopoulos et al.,
2019; Liang et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2010; Zhu et al., 2006). It has been
shown that coercive pressures have significant influence on the adoption
of ERP (Liang et al., 2007) and TQM (Dubey et al., 2018). Following
previous studies we believe that coercive pressures plays a significant
role in the assimilation process (see, Liang et al., 2007; Dubey et al.,
2018). The existing studies on assimilation suggest that coercive pres­
sures often arises from local government policies or regulatory author­
ities or expectations from local bodies and community, may have direct
or indirect impact on assimilation (see, Liang et al., 2007; Dubey et al.,
2018). Extending this argument to BI assimilation, we hypothesise as
follows:
H1. The coercive pressure has positive and significant effect on top leader’s
commitment.
2.1.2. Normative pressures (NP)
Following institutional logic, we argue that the institutional envi­
ronment shape the working behaviour of the individuals and the orga­
nizations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Liu et al., 2010; Dubey,
Gunasekaran, Childe, Blome et al., 2019; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe,
Papadopoulos et al., 2019). Following Liu et al. (2010, p. 374),
Normative pressures (NP) refer to the “pressures that stem from collective
expectations within particular organizational contexts of what constitutes
appropriate, and thus legitimate, behaviour”. NP penetrate via channels of
professional affiliations as well as the popularity generated by confer­
ences hosted by professional bodies (Liang et al., 2007). Lowry, Zhang,
Zhou, and Fu (2010) argue that normative isomorphism play an
important role in the diffusion of new technology innovation in any
organization. These arguments are consistent with the Zhu et al. (2006)
findings. Moreover, Dubey et al. (2018) in one of their studies have
found that normative pressures play a significant role in case TQM
assimilation. Hence, we believe that normative pressures have signifi­
cant influence during assimilation stage. Thus, we hypothesize it as:
H2. The normative pressure has positive and significant effect on top
leader’s commitment.
2.1.3. Mimetic pressures (MP)
DiMaggio and Powell (1983, p. 151) argue, “not all institutional
3
International Journal of Information Management 59 (2021) 102344
isomorphism, however, derives from coercive authority. Uncertainty is
also a powerful force that encourages imitation. When organizational
technologies are poorly understood, when goals are ambiguous, or when
the environment creates symbolic uncertainty, organizations may model
themselves on other organizations”. When organization faces highly
uncertain and ambiguous, the role of leadership is highly critical in
shaping organizational strategies (Schoemaker, Heaton, & Teece, 2018;
Yang, Huang, & Wu, 2019). Schoemaker et al. (2018) argue that in
highly uncertain environment, the leaders instead of focusing on
executing the plan, the leaders prepare the organization to quickly adapt
to the rapid changes with the help of technology. Prior studies have
found that mimetic pressures influence management commitment
(Liang et al., 2007; Zuo et al., 2020). The MP arise from the tendency of
organizations to mimic other organizations. Previous studies (see, Liang
et al., 2007; Dubey et al., 2018, 2019a; Lin et al., 2020; Zuo et al., 2020)
have noted that lack of clarity regarding the outcomes of the programs
whether it is referring to ERP adoption or adoption of TQM related
practices, organizations mimic other organizations within the similar
industry. The COVID-19 crisis has caused significant disruption and the
continuous lockdown has create high degree of uncertainties (Bryce,
Ring, Ashby, & Wardman, 2020; Pan, Cui, & Qian, 2020). Hence, we
believe that mimetic pressures have significant influence during assim­
ilation stage. Thus, we hypothesize it as:
H3. The mimetic pressure has positive and significant effect on top leader’s
commitment.
2.2. Top leaders commitment and BI assimilation (BI-ASM)
Institutional theory predicts institutional isomorphism but in reality,
organizations exhibit diversity with respect to benefits from BI imple­
mentation or manifest different levels of BI assimilation under similar
institutional environments. The organizational theorist have often
argued that institutional logic; often fail to explain the mechanism of the
translation of the external pressures in shaping organizational internal
policies (Colwell & Joshi, 2013; Kostova & Roth, 2002). Hence,
following Colwell and Joshi (2013) and Liang et al. (2007) arguments
we, argue that role of human agent help address the limitations of the
institutional theory. Thus, we propose that top leaders commitment
towards BI may help translate external pressures into BI assimilation.
Top leaders are expected to share the vision and mission of their orga­
nization with their employees (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Bryde, Dwivedi, &
Papadopoulos, 2020; Dubey et al., 2018; Dubey, Bryde et al., 2020).
They not only motivate their team members but also provide adequate
resources that may help assimilate BI (Dubey et al., 2018; Liang et al.,
2007), thereby creating a BI culture which is conductive for employees’
involvement. Overstreet, Hazen, Skipper, and Hanna (2014) that servant
leadership theory can assist in providing deeper insights into organiza­
tional commitment, which indirectly leads to business performance
result. Hence, we hypothesize based on previous arguments as:
H4. The top leader’s commitment has positive and significant effect on the
BI acceptance;
A. Chaubey and C.K. Sahoo
Hazen et al. (2012) have suggested ‘acceptance’ and ‘routinization’
as two preceding activities that help assimilation. Acceptance has
attracted significant attention from management scholars (see, Davis,
1989; Zhu et al., 2006; Hazen et al., 2012; Ahmad & Hossain, 2018).
Acceptance (ACP) in context to BI can be defined as how well organi­
zations constituents receive BI. Hazen et al. (2012) have argued that
once organizational constituents have accepted an innovation like BI as
a guiding philosophy, then it begins the process of being routinized
within organizations. Based on Dubey et al. (2018, p. 2993) arguments
we define “BI routinization as the permanent adjustment of the organiza­
tions’ governance systems to account for BI”. Based on previous studies on
information management and technology innovation (see, Jarvenpaa &
Ives, 1991; Purvis et al., 2001; Liang et al., 2007) we posit that the top
leader’s commitment may contribute to the BI assimilation via accep­
tance. Thus, we hypothesize:
H5. The BI acceptance has positive and significant effect on BI
routinization;
Following Zhu et al. (2006), we argue that the routinization is one of
the stages involved between adoption of the BI and the assimilation of
the BI. Following Zmud and Apple (1992, p. 149) we understand
routinization as “the permanent adjustment of an organization’s governance
system to account for the incorporation of a technology”. Routinization
refers to the organizational ability to put a procedure in the place that
evaluates the equipment turnover procedures to assure that the orga­
nization is prepared for the dynamic changes in the environment. This is
consistent with the innovation literature. Zhu et al. (2006) have found
that the routinization has a significant effect on the assimilation of the
technology. Ahmad and Hossain (2018) arguments is in consistent with
the Zhu et al. (2006) and the Hazen et al. (2012). In pretext of pandemic
crisis, the technology is quickly evolving to keep the pace with the rapid
changing environments. In such case the effective routinization pro­
cedure in the organization play a significant role in the assimilation of
the BI (Laato, Islam, Islam, & Whelan, 2020). Based on the preceding
discussions, we hypothesize it as:
H6. The BI routinization has positive and significant effect on BI
assimilation.
In our studies, we have controlled the size of the organization and
time since the BI has been adopted in their organization (Brown &
Kaewkitipong, 2009; Dubey et al., 2018; Liang et al., 2007). Liang et al.
(2007) argue that large organizations are more resilient towards hur­
dles, which tend to slow down the assimilation process. Furthermore,
decision-making is quite faster in smaller in comparison to large size
organizations. Hence, we believe that size of the organizations may have
significant influence on findings. Time since adoption has been noted in
several diffusion studies (see, Liang et al., 2007; Dubey et al., 2018) as
an important variable. Liang et al. (2007) argue that time is a significant
predictor of diffusion-related phenomenon like assimilation. Thus, this
variable reflects the assimilation learning curve (see, Fichman, 2001).
3. Research method
3.1. Construct operationalization and measurement
In our study, we have followed Churchill (1979) suggestions to
improve the reliability and validity of our study via following two-stage
process. Firstly, we have undertaken an extensive review of literature to
draw our construct and their measurement. Secondly, we have inter­
viewed twelve managers who have extensive years of experience in the
BI assimilation. We used qualitative content analysis to validate our
multi-item constructs. In response to the previous calls of management
scholars (Flynn, Huo, & Zhao, 2010; Malhotra & Grover, 1998; Rossiter,
2008; Mithas, Ramasubbu, & Sambamurthy, 2011; Schryen, 2013;
Fawcett et al., 2014; Schilke, 2014; Dubey, Gunasekaran et al., 2020;
Dubey, Bryde et al., 2020), we argue that qualitative content analysis is a
4
International Journal of Information Management 59 (2021) 102344
useful method to validate the borrowed multi-item construct with
real-life practices. We further gathered secondary data related to our
samples selected for our study. In a way we attempted to overcome the
limitations of our literature review and secondly, we have further tried
to reduce the negative effects of the common method bias resulting from
single source of data (see, Chin, Thatcher, & Wright, 2012; Fawcett
et al., 2014; Iyengar, Sweeney, & Montealegre, 2015).
We finally arrived to the list of items for each construct based on our
review of the literature and on a pre-test exercise, which we carried out
with the panel of eighteen identified experts to avoid any ambiguity of
the measurement items (see Appendix A). The measures listed in the
Appendix A were measured using Likert scale with the anchors ranging
between: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
3.2. Sample and data collection
We chose auto component manufacturing sector in India due to two
main reasons: firstly, Indian auto component- manufacturing sector has
experienced significant dip in the operating margin in comparison to the
last year performance due to the pandemic crisis. Secondly, the Indian
auto component-manufacturing sector has made significant investment
in the BI capability to improve the competitiveness (McKinsey & Com­
pany, 2020). Hence, we believe that the data gathered from Indian
auto-component manufacturing sector using survey based tool will be
highly useful for testing our research hypotheses.
We distributed our questionnaire via e-mail to the 532 auto-
components manufacturing firms located in the western and the
southern regions. We gathered the organisations detail from the data­
base of the The Automotive Components Manufacturers Association of
India (ACMA) and further validated the details via Dun & Bradstreet
(see, Dubey et al., 2018). Following previous studies using survey based
approach (see, Dwivedi, Kapoor, Williams, & Williams, 2013; Chen,
Preston, & Swink, 2015; Dubey et al., 2018; Srinivasan & Swink, 2018;
Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, Blome et al., 2019), was adopted following
Dillman’s (2011) suggestions. We followed up with the respondents
after one weeks to seek whether they have received an e-mail containing
the introduction letter and the questionnaire. Firstly, we received
questionnaire from 110 respondents. After several follow up calls, we
again sent packages to non-respondents after two weeks and 64 ques­
tionnaires were subsequently returned for an overall response rate of
32.71 %. In sum, 174 completed questionnaires were received (see
Table 1). We acknowledge that our association with the ACMA has
played an important role in gathering quality data.
3.3. Non-response bias
We note that data gathered using survey-based instrument at one
point of time might suffer from non-response bias (Fawcett et al., 2014;
Dubey et al., 2018, 2019a). In this study, we have used two approaches
to examine non-response bias in our collected data. Firstly, we adopted
traditional method [i.e., wave-analysis (Armstrong & Overton, 1977)] to
test non-response bias. The comparisons between early and late re­
sponses showed no statistical differences at p < 0.05, indicating that
non-response bias is not a potential issue in our study. Secondly,
following Wagner and Kemmerling (2010) arguments we have
Table 1
Demographic Profile of the Respondents.
Title Number %
CEO 9 5.17
CIO 33 18.97
Finance & Accounting Manager 15 8.62
Supply Chain Manager 67 38.51
Human Resource Manager 12 6.90
Customer Relationship Manager 23 13.22
Sales Manager 15 8.62
A. Chaubey and C.K. Sahoo International Journal of Information Management 59 (2021) 102344

compared the demographics of the respondents to demographic infor­
mation from non-respondents via Dun & Bradstreet and observed no
inconsistencies.
4. Data analyses and results
Before deciding on our modelling technique, we first performed an
assumptions test on our indicators (see, Fawcett et al., 2014, p.13).
Based on Eckstein, Goellner, Blome, and Henke (2015), we tested as­
sumptions related to constant variance, outliers, and normality. We
examined residual plots, rankits plot of residuals, and measures of
skewness and kurtosis. Based on Cohen (2008), we used Mahalanobis
distance to detect outliers. The maximum absolute values of skewness
and kurtosis were found to be 1.26 and 2.29, respectively (see Appendix
B). Based on Curran, West, and Finch (1996), we these values are well
within recommended limits (univariate skewness < 2, kurtosis < 7). In
sum, we found that the typical assumptions required for inference-based
statistics were met.
4.1. Measurement model
We have performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) following
Fornell and Larcker (1981) to examine the: (a) construct validity [indi­
vidual factor loadings, scale composite reliability (SCR) and average vari­
ance extracted (AVE)]. In our study we found that the individual factor
loadings were greater than 0.5, the SCRs were calculated to be greater
than 0.7, and the AVE for each construct was greater than 0.5 (Chin,
1998) (see, Table 2). (b) Next we have performed discriminant validity
test (see, Table 3). The Table 3 represent a matrix that contain the
correlations between paired constructs, and the leading diagonal of the
matrix shows the square root of the AVE of each construct. All measures
indicate adequate discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Model fit indices indicated acceptable fit of the data to the measurement
model [Normed Chi-Square = 1.9, which is less than 2 as recommended by
Carmines, McIver, Bohrnstedt, and Borgatta (1981) and Hu and Bentler
(1999) pointed that the threshold value of normed chi-square is 0.09].
4.2. Common method bias
The data gathered using single respondent questionnaire might suf­
fer from common-method bias (CMB) that may affect our statistical re­
sults (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). To reduce the negative effects of the
CMB, we performed Harman’s one factor test (see, Podsakoff, MacK­
enzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) to examine whether a single latent factor
would account for all the theoretical constructs (Dubey et al., 2018). The
exploratory factor analysis yielded seven factors parsimonious structure.
The single factor does not explain more than 13.95 % percent of total
51.03 percent of total variance. Hence common method bias is likely not
a significant threat to the findings. Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, Blome
et al. (2019), Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, Papadopoulos et al. (2019)
noted that the Harman’s one factor test is a traditional approach and
may not be sufficient to test CMB. We followed Malhotra, Kim, and Patil
(2006) suggestions via performing CFA loading all items on a single
factor, and further examine the fit indices. The single factor in this case
is equivalent to “one factor”, which indicates the existence of bias
resulting from data collection from a single source (Srinivasan & Swink,
2018). The fit for the one factor model is not adequate [RMSEA = 0.313;
NNFI = 0.094; CFI = 0.231 and SRMR = 0.513] and chi-square change
with respect to the hypothesized model is highly significant (p < 0.000).
Finally, we tested for CMB using the correlation marker technique
(Lindell & Whitney, 2001). We assumed an unrelated variable to
delineate out the correlations caused by CMB. In addition, we computed
the significances of the correlations based on Lindell and Whitney
(2001) suggestions (Srinivasan & Swink, 2018; Dubey, Gunasekaran,
Childe, Blome et al., 2019; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, Papadopoulos
et al., 2019). We observed minimal differences between adjusted and
unadjusted correlations. Following the results based on three methods,
we argue that the potential effects of the CMB is not significant. How­
ever, we caution readers that in future an attempt should be made to
collect data using instrument designed for multi-respondents (see,
Ketokivi & Schroeder, 2004).
4.3. Endogeneity test

Following Guide and Ketokivi (2015) arguments, we adopted some

measures to correct the endogeneity (see, Liu, Wei, Ke, Wei, & Hua,
2016). According to Guide and Ketokivi (2015, p. v), “when arguing that
Table 2 the variance of X gives rise to the variance of Y (causally or otherwise), we
Loadings of Indicator Variables (Scale Composite Reliability and Average Vari­
expect to see a plausible argument that the direction is indeed from X to Y, not
ance Extracted).
vice versa, or perhaps caused by an omitted variable. Measurement error can
Constructs Measures Factor Loading Variance Error SCR AVE also cause an endogeneity problem: if X and Y have a common measurement
CP-BI1 0.73 0.54 0.46 0.76 0.51 error source, X will unavoidably correlate with the error term of Y. Finally,
CP CP-BI2 0.70 0.49 0.51 sample selection bias may lead to problems very similar to that of endoge­
CP-BI3 0.72 0.52 0.48 neity”. Hence, we understand that we cannot eliminate the endogeneity
NP-BI1 0.87 0.76 0.24 0.85 0.65
NP NP-BI2 0.78 0.60 0.40
problem due to our research design. However, we adopted some mea­
NP-BI3 0.76 0.58 0.42 sures to correct it in our model that may lead to inconsistent and biased
MP-BI1 0.83 0.69 0.31 0.89 0.67 outcomes (Liu et al., 2016). We performed two-stage least squares
MP-BI2 0.82 0.67 0.33 regression analysis with the questionnaire variables (Bellamy, Ghosh, &
MP
MP-BI3 0.82 0.67 0.33
Hora, 2014; Liu et al., 2016). To conduct two-stage least squares
MP-BI4 0.81 0.65 0.35
TLC2 0.79 0.62 0.38 0.83 0.50 regression analysis, we identified size of the organization as the poten­
TLC3 0.68 0.46 0.54 tial instrumental variable as it does not have significant effect on the BI
TLC TLC4 0.53 0.28 0.72 assimilation. Following Bellamy et al. (2014) we regressed TLC on all
TLC5 0.75 0.56 0.44 instrumental variables and the control variables at the first stage. We
TLC6 0.75 0.57 0.43
ASM-BI1 0.69 0.48 0.52 0.75 0.50
observed that the R2 value increased significantly in comparison to the
BI-ASM ASM-BI2 0.61 0.37 0.63 model with only control variables. This indicates that the organization
ASM-BI3 0.81 0.65 0.35 size can be effectively assumed as an instrumental value for TLC in our
ACP
ACP-BI2 0.80 0.64 0.36 0.84 0.72 study. Next, we conducted Durbin-Wu-Hausman post-estimation test for
ACP-BI3 0.89 0.79 0.21
endogeneity (Davidson & MacKinnon, 1993). In this test we performed
RO-BI1 0.80 0.64 0.36 0.94 0.74
RO-BI2 0.79 0.62 0.38 augmented test on the TLC by adding the error term that we obtained in
RO-BI4 0.86 0.74 0.26 the first stage while performing two-stage least squares regression test.
RO
RO-BI5 0.90 0.81 0.19 The path coefficients of the error term of TLC were insignificantly
RO-BI6 0.91 0.83 0.17 related to the BI assimilation. This establishes that the endogeneity
RO-BI7 0.89 0.79 0.21
associated with the TLC is insignificant in our study. Thus, we can argue

5
A. Chaubey and C.K. Sahoo International Journal of Information Management 59 (2021) 102344

Table 3
Correlations among major constructs.

(Note: The leading diagonal of matrix represented in grey shade is square root of average variance extracted).

that the TLC is an exogeneous variable and not the endogeneous. 5. Discussion
Similarly, we examined in case of CP, NP and MP we found the path
coefficients of the error term of CP, NP and MP were insignificantly In this study, we have posited two guiding research questions and
related to the TLC. five research hypotheses suggesting that the institutional pressures
under the mediating effect of the top leader’s commitment influence the
4.4. Hypotheses testing assimilation of the BI. More specifically, building on institutional theory
and upper echelon theory, we developed our research model (see Fig. 1)
Although we considered structural equation modelling approaches to address our research questions (RQ1 and RQ2). By addressing RQ1,
(Wendorf, 2002), we concluded that the hierarchical regression our study attempts to bridge, the existing research gaps. To date, the
modelling is the favourable approach in this study in consideration of collective influence of institutional pressure on assimilation of BI has not
both the estimation function and the parsimony of presentation. Test been studied (Liang et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2020; Teo, Wei, & Benbasat,
results are presented in Table 4. Our hypothesis H2 (NP→TLC) is sup­ 2003; Zuo et al., 2020). Addressing this gap is important given that types
ported (β = 0.17, p = 0.01). This result of our study is consistent with the of pressure (coercive, mimetic and normative) are ‘not always empirically
previous studies (Dubey et al., 2018; Liang et al., 2007). Next, we found distinct’ (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 150). Our findings therefore
support for H3 (MP→TLC) (β = 0.71; p = 0.00). We can argue that the contributes to this literature in two ways. Firstly, we provide the liter­
MP has a positive and significant effect on the TLC. These findings of our ature with survey based reflective measures of institutional pressures
study are consistent with the previous studies in context to ERP assim­ that capture coercive, mimetic and normative pressures. Secondly, the
ilation (Liang et al., 2007) and the TQM assimilation (Dubey et al., previous literature has noted the limitations of institutional theory in
2018). Similarly, we found support for H4 (TLC→ACP) (β = 0.11; p = explaining the extent to which companies within the same institutional
0.02), H5 (ACP→RO) (β = 0.56; p = 0.00) and H6 (RO→BI-ASM) (β = field (i.e. industry) actually adopt the technological innovations (Col­
0.25; p = 0.00). These results are consistent with the Zhu et al. (2006) well & Joshi, 2013; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, Blome et al., 2019;
and Dubey et al. (2018) findings. We observed that the size of the or­ Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, Papadopoulos et al., 2019; Greenwood &
ganization has no significant effect on the BI-ASM. We conclude that Hinings, 1996; Liang et al., 2007; Oliver, 1997; Zuo et al., 2020). To
during pandemic resulting from COVID-19, the importance of the BI has address these limitations, we have incorporated the role of top leader’s
been realized by all kind of organizations irrespective of their size. commitment within the institutional theory framework (Greenwood &
Although, we assumed that larger organization have access to more Hinings, 1996; Liang et al., 2007). To date, however, few studies have
resources. However, the COVID-19 crisis has played an important role in explored this new extension. Our study closes this gap.
bridging the wide gaps that existed pre-COVID-19 crisis. In an attempt to address our RQ2, we develop and empirically test a
Based on hypothesis testing, we found that in the case of BI assimi­ theoretically grounded model that confirms the collective influence
lation, the top leader’s commitment may not be significantly influenced institutional pressures may have on top leadership commitment for the
by coercive pressure, as the first research hypothesis is not supported BI assimilation. Specifically, we show how top leader’s commitment to
(β= -0.11; p = 0.23). This result provides a clear insight into the the BI assimilation can mediate the relationship between institutional
particular situation that has forced the organizations to use innovative pressures and BI assimilation. By doing so, we provide some of the first
technologies to improve their business operations and decision-making empirical evidence to support the inclusion of intraorganizational dy­
abilities. The COVID-19 crisis has forced organizations to adapt to the namics (see, Greenwood & Hinings, 1996; Colwell & Joshi, 2013),
new norms. Hence, during pandemic, the organizations have increas­ within institutional theory, as an approach for understanding why or­
ingly invested in innovative technologies to maintain their competitive ganizations demonstrate differential behaviour in context to the adop­
advantage. tion of BI tools. Moreover our study building on previous arguments,
attempted to explain BI assimilation using institutional theory and upper
echelon theory and extend the BI work of Nam et al. (2019) during
Table 4
Overview of Hypotheses Test. pandemic crisis. In this way our study, provides theoretical explanation
to pandemic effect on organizational responsiveness towards BI tools
Hypothesis Direction of β t- P value Conclusion
assimilation (Pan & Zhang, 2020; Papadopoulos et al., 2020). Dubey
βvalues
statistics
et al. (2019) used institutional theory to explain the motives of organi­
H1: CP→TLC − 0.11 reverse − 1.21 0.23 not-
zations when adopting big data analytics, whereas Dubey et al. (2018)
supported
H2:NP→TLC 0.17 positive 2.15 0.01 supported
explained the impact of contextual factors on organizational perfor­
H3:MP→TLC 0.71 positive 14.9 0.00 supported mance using institutional theory. However, both studies did not focus on
H4: TLC→ACP 0.11 positive 2.31 0.02 supported post-implementation phases, which was the focus of this study. Overall,
H5: ACP→RO 0.56 positive 16.71 0.00 supported we can argue that mimetic and normative pressures affect top man­
H6:RO→BI- 0.25 positive 3.86 0.00 supported
agement commitment, which subsequently affects acceptance, routini­
ASM
zation, and assimilation of BI. However, we found that coercive
[Notes: CP, coercive pressures; MP, mimetic pressures; NP, normative pressures; pressures were not positively related to top leader’s commitment (β=
TLC, top-leadership commitment; ACP, acceptance; RO, routinization; BI-ASM- -0.11; p > 0.1). This result is in contrast to the existing literature
business intelligence assimilation; BI, business intelligence].

6
A. Chaubey and C.K. Sahoo
exploring the role of institutional pressures and the statistically signifi­
cant positive influence of coercive pressures on top managers’ posture
towards the adoption of activities related to the improvement of orga­
nizational processes or recovery of the environment in which firms are
embedded such as reverse logistics (Ye, Zhao, Prahinski, & Li, 2013),
green supply chain management practices (Zhu, Sarkis, & Lai, 2013),
and supply chain management systems (Liu et al., 2010; Zhang &
Dhaliwal, 2009) and technologies (Bhakoo & Choi, 2013; Liu et al.,
2010; Saldanha, Mello, Knemeyer, & Vijayaraghavan, 2015). In a way,
we present that how our study extend and contradicts previous studies
focusing on adoption or assimilation of the technology. Our study in
comparison to other studies we found that in our case we note that CP
has no significant influence on TLC which contradict the Liang et al.
(2007) and Dubey et al. (2018) research findings. Moreover, our study
extend the previous studies (see, Teo et al., 2003; Lin et al., 2020 and
Zuo et al., 2020) by examining the role of TLC in translating institutional
pressures to shape the technology assimilation strategy. Hence, we
believe that our statistical results paint an interesting picture of asso­
ciations and complementarities among the external pressures, top
management leader’s and BI diffusion stages (i.e., acceptance, routini­
zation and assimilation) in pandemic crisis resulted from COVID-19.
Collectively, these results have implications for the practitioners, as
well as provide some new research questions in this field of research.
5.1. Theoretical contributions
There is a rich body of literature focusing on the role of institutional
forces on the adoption of technology (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe,
Blome et al., 2019; Liang et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2020; Pennings &
Harianto, 1992; Teo et al., 2003). Liang et al. (2007) in context to ERP
assimilation attempted to explain the role of top management commit­
ment in translating the external pressures into the ERP assimilation. In a
way, Liang et al. (2007) attempted to address the limitations of the
previous work (see, Pennings & Harianto, 1992; Teo et al., 2003) by
including top management commitment as mediating construct. How­
ever, Liang et al. (2007) remained silent on the stages involved in the
assimilation. Dubey et al. (2018) in one of their studies have tried to
explain three stages of assimilation in context to the TQM philosophy.
However, in the case of technological innovation, the existing works
have largely remained silent. Our study findings enriches
BI-Assimilation research via examining the role of institutional factors
effects on organization intention to adopt the BI and embrace it
completely across all the functional departments of the organization.
Here, we attempted to develop a theory that explain the assimilation of
the BI in an organization during unprecedented time. The existing
literature offers rich discussion on the factors that influences the adop­
tion of the BI. However, most of the studies have examined using
resource based perspective or organizational information processing
perspective. However, the literature on BI has remained silent on how
the external pressures drive the organization to assimilate the BI as their
organizational philosophy. Although, in context to ERP and TQM
assimilation, the scholars have offered explanation grounded in the
institutional theory. This study, thus heeds calls for theory-focused data
driven study that provides in depth understanding of how BI assimila­
tion occurs during pandemic crisis. Hence, we argue that our study
contribution to the BI literature is threefold. Firstly, we attempted to
provide an operational definition of BI assimilation and develop and
statistically validate a model that examines the effect of coercive,
mimetic and normative pressures on top leader’s commitment to BI
assimilation. Hence, we argue that our study contributes to the theo­
retical boundaries of BI assimilation in uncertain time. Secondly, we
integrate institutional theory and upper echelon theory to explain BI
assimilation in terms of a three-stage post-implementation process (i.e.
acceptance, routinization and assimilation). In a way argue that the TLC
help translate the pressures resulting from the competitors and the ex­
pectations of organization to provide better results during pandemic
7
International Journal of Information Management 59 (2021) 102344
crisis. Thirdly, we extend prior literature (see, Nam et al., 2019; Chen &
Lin, 2020) by integrating Liang et al. (2007) and Hazen et al. (2012)
studies to model BI assimilation during pandemic crisis. In a way we
attempted to address research calls of some information management
scholars in the wake of pandemic crisis (see, Papadopoulos et al., 2020;
Dwivedi et al., 2020; Pan & Zhang, 2020). We can argue that our find­
ings help understand how institutional theory and upper echelon theory
provides a better understanding of the assimilation of BI during an un­
certain time. These findings of our study answer the antagonists who
often criticized the institutional theory and their inability to influence
the organizational policies.
5.2. Managerial implications
The pandemic crisis resulting from COVID-19 has transformed the
lives of citizens and organizations way of doing business. The pandemic
has triggered the humanity to find innovative ways of doing business to
keep the sinking economy afloat. Although, we often blame COVID-19
and pandemic for current crisis. However, the pandemic has offered
significant insight into our hidden problems that has plagued our world
economy. The pandemic has exposed our weakness and reflected our
capabilities to deal with such health crisis. The power of emerging
technology has been understood during the pandemic crisis to fight
against the disruptions caused by the pandemic crisis (Dwivedi et al.,
2020; Ivanov, 2020). The BI tools have not only to help organizations to
reduce the spread of the virus; it has helped enhance the performance of
the organizations. BI has changed the overall business strategies of the
organization. In recent times, the BI tools have played a significant role
in building trust and collaboration among the various stakeholders. The
majority of these BI tools extensively rely on data analytics to promote
better communication between organizational stakeholders. Despite,
availability of BI tools the organizations have struggled to optimally
utilize these BI tools in an effective and efficient way. Hence, our find­
ings clearly suggest practitioners who consider investments in BI care­
fully evaluate: (1) how organizational policies are aligned with the
external pressures; (2) to what extent the top leaders of the organization
are familiar with the effects of the external pressures on the diffusion of
BI. For example, during pandemic resulting from the COVID-19, BI and
data analytics initiatives are proving to be a boon in disguise for many
organizations. It helps organizations to sense and adapt to the disrup­
tions caused by the pandemic. It enables organizations to develop new
products as well as help protect their own employees without affecting
their business propositions. Hence, we can argue that our findings can be
used as guidance to managers and consultants who are involved in BI
implementation. The mediating role of TLC in BI assimilation clearly
suggests that top leaders plays a critical role in the BI assimilation
process. For instance, as the organization struggle to adapt to the un­
precedented crisis resulting from the COVID-19, top leaders are
encouraging their BI teams to develop new solutions at a faster rate and
to make allowances for needs that are changing rapidly to a high degree
of uncertainties. Moreover, via this study, we have realized that the most
important lesson that organizations are learning about the BI during a
pandemic is that it will have a little effect within organizations still
insisting on top-down decision making. Instead, the organizations using
BI to the greatest effect are those that have a culture of the delegation of
authority, where employees are empowered to make data-driven de­
cisions without the need to wait for their superiors to approve it. We
found how the acceptance of BI among an organization’s constituents
further helps to align organization’s governance systems to ultimately
usher in BI assimilation. The finding that institutional forces (apart from
coercive forces) influence BI assimilation is quite interesting for man­
agers and consultants. Traditionally, managers focus on implementation
more so than post-implementation phases. Thus, a large percentage of
organizations typically report BI failures due to a lack of understanding
of assimilation processes. Hence, the study findings can help managers
to focus on each of the intermediary steps that lead to assimilation of BI.
A. Chaubey and C.K. Sahoo International Journal of Information Management 59 (2021) 102344

Attending to the acceptance and routinization aspects of BI is important
for the eventual assimilation of BI. Further, we believe that institutional
pressures (normative and mimetic), if properly translated by top man­
agers who are committed towards BI assimilation, can be very useful for
those companies that have reported losses due to failure to reap benefits
from their investments in BI implementation and would like to further
investigate the reasons behind this failure in order to re-launch or
re-energize BI efforts. Finally, our study offers some useful tips to the
managers who are unable to exploit BI to minimize the disruptions
caused by the pandemic resulting from COVID-19 and may serve as a
useful guidance for the managers to deal with future crisis. Despite the
significant success, the remaining flaws of the organizations that prevent
the organization from achieving maximum benefits from their BI ini­
tiatives are becoming known. That offers a unique opportunity to fix
them finally. With that in mind, here are the top three lessons that
businesses are learning about BI amidst the pandemic.
5.3. Limitations and further research direction
Drawing on institutional theory and upper echelon theory, and
literature on BI and elements of innovation diffusion, we developed and
tested our theoretical model using data from quality managers at 174
auto-component manufacturers during pandemic crisis stage. Our study
has some limitations that should be noted. Firstly, we have tested our
theoretical model using data gathered from the auto-components
manufacturing sector. However, there may be variations in terms of
practices between manufacturing sectors. Hence, future research can
examine this model across sectors. Secondly, to test our framework we
used cross-sectional, single-source data. Future research can employ
longitudinal methods to test for causality in the model. In addition,
future research examining outcomes of assimilation is especially
encouraged. Our study is based on a single country and single industry
data, which may limit the generalizability of our study. Hence, in order
to reduce the variability induced by the industry differences, we pur­
posely chose the Indian auto-component manufacturing industry (see,
Liu et al., 2010). To minimize the biases resulting from personal dif­
ferences due to the background, we identified respondents of similar
backgrounds who had obtained training from a similar kind of institu­
tion. Although we believe that our data collection strategy may have
helped the internal validity of our study, this may limit the external
validity of the study. Moreover, this study has been conducted to capture
the managers response in context to pandemic crisis resulted from the
COVID-19.Thus, we believe that the findings of our study should be
cautiously evaluated in context to other settings. Moreover, our
comparative analysis of the results show that in context to China the role
of CP is highly significant. Similarly, in the context Indian automotive
industry, the role of CP is insignificant. These differential results can be
better explained using national culture theory. For instance, Prakash and
Majumdar (2021) investigated how national culture plays an important
role in content creation in the context of a social media platform.
Similarly, George et al. (2018) and Gupta and Gupta (2019) have
advocated in favor of the influence of national culture on shaping
organizational strategies. We believe that our study could be extended
by examining the moderating effect of national culture dimensions on
the paths joining institutional pressures and TLC. We also encourage
future research using multiple case study, ethnographic, and action
research methods to build more comprehensive theory to explain the BI
assimilation.
6. Conclusions
The study examines the role of external pressures and top leaders
commitment in BI diffusion process. Informed by information manage­
ment and organizational theories we have conceptualized a theoretical
model. To validate our theoretical model and test our research hy­
potheses, we have gathered data from Indian auto component
manufacturing sector to understand how external pressures and the top
leaders have played a significant role in BI assimilation during pandemic
crisis, which has affected the business worldwide. Despite of the poor
operating margin, the sector has learnt a new way to deal such with such
unprecedented time via investing in BI and exploiting them in an
appropriate way. We hope our findings and limitations of our study
provide enough food for thought.
Authors comment
The first author (Mrs Akriti Chaubey, who is a Doctoral Scholar at
School of Management, National Institute of Technology Rourkela) has
contributed in the manuscript through the following ways:
1 Conceptualized the theoretical model via extensive literature review;
2 Formulated research hypotheses;
3 Developed a structured questionnaire;
4 Carried out data collection;
5 Performed Data Analysis
6 Drafted the manuscript
The second author (Dr Chandan Kumar Sahoo, who is Professor at
the School of Management, National Institute of Technology Rourkela)
has contributed in the manuscript through the following ways:
1 Provided in-depth inputs during theoretical framing;
2 Offered significant inputs related to data analyses and the selection
of appropriate statistical tools;
3 Helped during proof editing;
4 Helped during discussion section writing (i.e., contributions to
theory).

Appendix A. Constructs and Items

Construct Relevant Literature Items

Coercive Pressures (CP- Dubey et al. (2018) 1 The local authority want our organization to use BI during pandemic crisis (CP-BI1).
BI) 2 The professional associations expect our organization to use BI during pandemic crisis (CP-BI2).
3 The consumers of our organization expect our organization to adopt BI during pandemic crisis (CP-BI3).
Normative Pressures Dubey et al. (2018) 1 The extent to which your channel partners have adopted BI during pandemic crisis (NP-BI1).
(NP-BI) 2 The extent to which first and second tier suppliers of your organization have adopted BI during pandemic crisis (NP-
BI2).
3 The extent to which the professional societies promotion schemes have influenced your organization to adopt BI
during pandemic crisis (NP-BI3).
Mimetic Pressures (MP- Dubey et al. (2018) 1 Our main business rival has gained significant business advantage with the adoption of BI during pandemic crisis (MP-
BI) BI1)
2 The use of BI is well received by other competitors in our industry during pandemic crisis (MP-BI2).
3 The customers of our organization have appreciated the use of BI during pandemic crisis (MP-BI3).
(continued on next page)

8
A. Chaubey and C.K. Sahoo International Journal of Information Management 59 (2021) 102344

(continued )
Construct Relevant Literature Items

Top leader’s
Commitment (TLC)
Acceptance (ACP-BI)
Routinization (RO-BI)
BI Assimilation (ASM-BI)
Liang et al. (2007); Dubey
et al. (2018)
Hazen et al. (2012); Dubey
et al. (2018)
Hazen et al. (2012), Dubey
et al. (2018)
Liang et al. (2007); Dubey
et al. (2018)
4 The suppliers of our organization have appreciated the use of BI during pandemic crisis (MP4).
1 Our organization top leaders believe that the BI has potential to enhance the business performance of our organization
during pandemic crisis (TLC1).
2 Our organization top leaders believe that the use of BI will enhance business opportunities during pandemic crisis
(TLC2).
3 Our organization top leaders have formulated a strategy for the use of BI during pandemic crisis (TLC3).
4 Our organization top leaders share the BI vision with all stakeholders during pandemic crisis (including you) (TLC4).
5 Our organization top leaders established the performance metrics to monitor the BI project during pandemic crisis
(TLC5).
6 Our organization top leaders recognizes the contribution of the partners engaged in BI project during pandemic crisis
(TLC6).
1 1To what extent you believe that BI enhance my job performance during pandemic crisis (ACP-BI1).
2 To what extent you and your colleagues associate with the BI during pandemic crisis (ACP-BI2).
3 To what extent the infrastructure support the innovation during pandemic crisis (ACP-BI3).
1 To what extent in your organization procedures are defined for replacement of tangible resources necessary to support
BI during pandemic crisis (RO-BI1).
2 To what extent in your organization a separate budget has been created to support BI during pandemic crisis (RO-BI2).
3 Our organization have a dedicated team to support BI during pandemic crisis (RO-BI3).
4 Our organization have defined organizational procedures for procurement of necessary items during pandemic crisis
(RO-BI4).
5 Our organization hire and retain qualified people to support BI during pandemic crisis (RO-BI5).
6 To what extent my organization offers opportunities for initial and /or recurring training regarding the BI during
pandemic crisis (RO-BI6).
7 To what extent in my organization a person familiar with the BI have been promoted into higher positions of greater
authority such that they support the innovation further especially during pandemic crisis (RO-BI7).
1 To what extent your organization has exploited the BI tools in every department (%) during pandemic crisis (ASM-
BI1).
2 To what extent all the functional departments in your organization used BI tool during the pandemic crisis (ASM-BI2).
3 To what extent your organization use BI tools in each functional department as indicated by you:
a) Business operations
b) Management practices
c) Decision making (ASM-BI3).

Appendix B. Skewness (top) and exc. kurtosis (bottom) coefficients

CP NP MP TLC BI-ASM ACP RO OS

− 0.488 − 0.634 − 0.286 − 0.453 − 0.862 − 0.289 − 1.202 1.618

0.584 0.858 0.104 − 0.073 − 0.205 − 0.606 1.307 2.183

References Chen, D. Q., Preston, D. S., & Swink, M. (2015). How the use of big data analytics affects
value creation in supply chain management. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 32(4), 4–39.
Ahmad, A., & Hossain, M. A. (2018). Assimilation of business intelligence systems: The
Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling.
mediating role of organizational knowledge culture. Conference on e-Business, e-
MIS Quarterly, 22(1), Vii–Xvii.
Services and e-Society (pp. 480–491). Cham: Springer.
Chin, W. W., Thatcher, J. B., & Wright, R. T. (2012). Assessing common method bias:
Ain, N., Vaia, G., DeLone, W. H., & Waheed, M. (2019). Two decades of research on
Problems with the ULMC technique. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 1003–1019.
business intelligence system adoption, utilization and success–A systematic literature
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
review. Decision Support Systems, 125, Article 113113.
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
Cohen, B. H. (2008). Explaining psychological statistics. John Wiley & Sons.
Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
Colwell, S. R., & Joshi, A. W. (2013). Corporate ecological responsiveness: Antecedent
Audzeyeva, A., & Hudson, R. (2016). How to get the most from a business intelligence
effects of institutional pressure and top management commitment and their impact
application during the post implementation phase? Deep structure transformation at
on organizational performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(2), 73–91.
a UK retail bank. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 29–46.
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to
Bellamy, M. A., Ghosh, S., & Hora, M. (2014). The influence of supply network structure
nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological
on firm innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 32(6), 357–373.
Methods, 1(1), 16–29.
Bhakoo, V., & Choi, T. (2013). The iron cage exposed: Institutional pressures and
Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1993). Estimation and inference in Econometrics.
heterogeneity across the healthcare supply chain. Journal of Operations Management,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31(6), 432–449.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
Božič, K., & Dimovski, V. (2019). Business intelligence and analytics for value creation:
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
The role of absorptive capacity. International Journal of Information Management, 46,
Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. (2004). Stakeholders and environmental management
93–103.
practices: an institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4),
Brown, D. H., & Kaewkitipong, L. (2009). Relative size and complexity: e-business use in
209–222.
small and medium sized tourism enterprises in Thailand. Journal of Enterprise
Dillman, D. A. (2011). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method–2007 update
Information Management, 22(1/2), 212–231.
with new internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Bryce, C., Ring, P., Ashby, S., & Wardman, J. K. (2020). Resilience in the face of
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
uncertainty: Early lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Risk Research, 23
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
(7–8), 880–887.
Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Carmines, E. G., McIver, J. P., Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Borgatta, E. F. (1981). Analyzing
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B. T., & Roubaud, D.
models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. Social
(2018). Examining top management commitment to TQM diffusion using
measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–115), 80.
institutional and upper echelon theories. International Journal of Production Research,
Chen, Y., & Lin, Z. (2020). Business intelligence capabilities and firm performance: A
56(8), 2988–3006.
study in China. International Journal of Information Management, Article 102232.

9
A. Chaubey and C.K. Sahoo
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Blome, C., & Papadopoulos, T. (2019). Big data
and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: integrating institutional
theory, resource-based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management, 30
(2), 341–361.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., & Papadopoulos, T. (2019). Supplier
relationship management for circular economy: Influence of external pressures and
top management commitment. Management Decision, 57(4), 767–790.
Dubey, R., Bryde, D. J., Foropon, C., Tiwari, M., Dwivedi, Y., & Schiffling, S. (2020). An
investigation of information alignment and collaboration as complements to supply
chain agility in humanitarian supply chain. International Journal of Production
Research, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1865583.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Bryde, D. J., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Papadopoulos, T. (2020).
Blockchain technology for enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within
a humanitarian supply chain setting. International Journal of Production Research, 58
(11), 3381–3398.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kapoor, K. K., Williams, M. D., & Williams, J. (2013). RFID systems in
libraries: An empirical examination of factors affecting system use and user
satisfaction. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 367–377.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-
examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT):
Towards a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 719–734.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., … Galanos, V.
(2021). Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging
challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International
Journal of Information Management, 57, Article 101994.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, D. L., Coombs, C., Constantiou, I., Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., …
Raman, R. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management
research and practice: Transforming education, work and life. International Journal of
Information Management, 55, Article 102211.
Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C., & Henke, M. (2015). The performance impact of
supply chain agility and supply chain adaptability: The moderating effect of product
complexity. International Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 3028–3046.
Elbashir, M. Z., Collier, P. A., & Davern, M. J. (2008). Measuring the effects of business
intelligence systems: The relationship between business process and organizational
performance. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 9(3), 135–153.
Fawcett, S. E., Waller, M. A., Miller, J. W., Schwieterman, M. A., Hazen, B. T., &
Overstreet, R. E. (2014). A trail guide to publishing success: tips on writing
influential conceptual, qualitative, and survey research. Journal of Business Logistics,
35(1), 1–16.
Fichman, R. G. (2001). The role of aggregation in the measurement of IT-related
organizational innovation. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 427–455.
Flynn, B. B., Huo, B., & Zhao, X. (2010). The impact of supply chain integration on
performance: A contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations
Management, 28(1), 58–71.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3),
39–50.
Fosso Wamba, S., & Queiroz, M. M. (2020). Industry 4.0 and the supply chain
digitalisation: A blockchain diffusion perspective. Production Planning and Control,
1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1810756.
George, J. F., Gupta, M., Giordano, G., Mills, A. M., Tennant, V. M., & Lewis, C. C. (2018).
The effects of communication media and culture on deception detection accuracy.
MIS Quarterly, 42(2), 551–575.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change:
Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. The Academy of Management
Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Whetten, D. (2014). Rethinking institutions and
organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 51(7), 1206–1220.
Guide, V. D. R., & Ketokivi, M. (2015). Notes from the Editors: Redefining some
methodological criteria for the journal. Journal of Operations Management, (37),
v–viii.
Gupta, M., & Gupta, S. (2019). Influence of national cultures on operations management
and supply chain management practices—A research agenda. Production and
Operations Management, 28(11), 2681–2698.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection
of its top managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
Harris, M., Bhatti, Y., Buckley, J., & Sharma, D. (2020). Fast and frugal innovations in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Medicine, 26, 814–817.
Hazen, B. T., Overstreet, R. E., & Cegielski, C. G. (2012). Supply chain innovation
diffusion: Going beyond adoption. The International Journal of Logistics Management,
23(1), 119–134.
Heugens, P. P., & Lander, M. W. (2009). Structure! Agency!(and other quarrels): A meta-
analysis of institutional theories of organization. The Academy of Management
Journal, 52(1), 61–85.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Ivanov, D. (2020). Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains:
A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2)
case. Transportation Research Part E Logistics and Transportation Review, 136, Article
101922.
Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2020). Viability of intertwined supply networks: Extending the
supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by
COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of Production Research, 58(10), 2904–2915.
10
International Journal of Information Management 59 (2021) 102344
Iyengar, K., Sweeney, J. R., & Montealegre, R. (2015). Information technology use as a
learning mechanism: The impact of IT use on knowledge transfer effectiveness,
absorptive capacity, and franchisee performance. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 615–642.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1991). Executive involvement and participation in the
management of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 205–227.
Kar, A. K., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020). Theory building with big data-driven
research–Moving away from the “What” towards the “Why”. International Journal of
Information Management, 54, Article 102205.
Kauppi, K. (2013). Extending the use of institutional theory in operations and supply
chain management research. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 33(10), 1318–1345.
Ketokivi, M. A., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Perceptual measures of performance: fact or
fiction? Journal of Operations Management, 22(3), 247–264.
Koh, S. L., & Gunasekaran, A. (2006). A knowledge management approach for managing
uncertainty in manufacturing. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(4),
439–459.
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of
multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. The Academy of
Management Journal, 45(1), 215–233.
Kummitha, R. K. R. (2020). Smart technologies for fighting pandemics: The techno-and
human-driven approaches in controlling the virus transmission. Government
Information Quarterly, Article 101481.
Laato, S., Islam, A. N., Islam, M. N., & Whelan, E. (2020). What drives unverified
information sharing and cyberchondria during the COVID-19 pandemic? European
Journal of Information Systems, 29(3), 288–305.
Lee, S. M., & Trimi, S. (2020). Convergence innovation in the digital age and in the
COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Journal of Business Research, 123, 14–22.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The
effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS
Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.
Lin, J., Luo, Z., & Luo, X. (2020). Understanding the roles of institutional pressures and
organizational innovativeness in contextualized transformation toward e-business:
Evidence from agricultural firms. International Journal of Information Management,
51, Article 102025.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in
cross-sectional research designs. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K. K., Gu, J., & Chen, H. (2010). The role of institutional pressures
and organizational culture in the firm’s intention to adopt internet-enabled supply
chain management systems. Journal of Operations Management, 28(5), 372–384.
Liu, H., Wei, S., Ke, W., Wei, K. K., & Hua, Z. (2016). The configuration between supply
chain integration and information technology competency: A resource orchestration
perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 44, 13–29.
López-Robles, J. R., Otegi-Olaso, J. R., Gómez, I. P., & Cobo, M. J. (2019). 30 years of
intelligence models in management and business: A bibliometric review.
International Journal of Information Management, 48, 22–38.
Lowry, P. B., Zhang, D., Zhou, L., & Fu, X. (2010). Effects of culture, social presence, and
group composition on trust in technology-supported decision-making groups.
Information Systems Journal, 20(3), 297–315.
Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: From
constructs to theory. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 407–425.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A
comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management
Science, 52(12), 1865–1883.
McKinsey & Company. (2020). Shaping the new normal: India’s auto component industry.
September, Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/-/media/McKinsey/Featured
%20Insights/India/Shaping%20the%20new%20normal/Shaping%20the%20new%
20normal_report.pdf (Date of Access: 16th November, 2020).
Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How information management
capability influences firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 237–256.
Nam, D., Lee, J., & Lee, H. (2019). Business analytics adoption process: An innovation
diffusion perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 411–423.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and
resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.
Olszak, C. M. (2016). Toward better understanding and use of Business Intelligence in
organizations. Information Systems Management, 33(2), 105–123.
Overstreet, R. E., Hazen, B. T., Skipper, J. B., & Hanna, J. B. (2014). Bridging the gap
between strategy and performance: Using leadership style to enable structural
elements. Journal of Business Logistics, 35(2), 136–149.
Pan, S. L., Cui, M., & Qian, J. (2020). Information resource orchestration during the
COVID-19 pandemic: A study of community lockdowns in China. International
Journal of Information Management, 54, Article 102143.
Pan, S. L., & Zhang, S. (2020). From fighting COVID-19 pandemic to tackling sustainable
development goals: An opportunity for responsible information systems research.
International Journal of Information Management, 55, Article 102196.
Papadopoulos, T., Baltas, K. N., & Balta, M. E. (2020). The use of digital technologies by
small and medium enterprises during COVID-19: Implications for theory and
practice. International Journal of Information Management, 55, Article 102192.
Pennings, J. M., & Harianto, F. (1992). The diffusion of technological innovation in the
commercial banking industry. Strategic Management Journal, 13(1), 29–46.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
A. Chaubey and C.K. Sahoo
Prakash, C. D., & Majumdar, A. (2021). Analyzing the role of national culture on content
creation and user engagement on Twitter: The case of Indian Premier League cricket
franchises. International Journal of Information Management, 57, Article 102268.
Pramanik, D., Mondal, S. C., & Haldar, A. (2020). A framework for managing uncertainty
in information system project selection: An intelligent fuzzy approach. International
Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 15(1), 70–78.
Purvis, R. L., Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2001). The assimilation of knowledge
platforms in organizations: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 12(2),
117–135.
Queiroz, M., Tallon, P. P., Sharma, R., & Coltman, T. (2018). The role of IT application
orchestration capability in improving agility and performance. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 4–21.
Queiroz, M. M., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Wamba, S. F. (2020). Impacts of epidemic
outbreaks on supply chains: Mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19
pandemic through a structured literature review. Annals of Operations Research,
1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03685-7.
Ramakrishnan, T., Jones, M. C., & Sidorova, A. (2012). Factors influencing business
intelligence (BI) data collection strategies: An empirical investigation. Decision
Support Systems, 52(2), 486–496.
Ranjan, J., & Foropon, C. (2021). Big data analytics in building the competitive
intelligence of organizations. International Journal of Information Management, 56,
Article 102231.
Remko, V. H. (2020). Research opportunities for a more resilient post-COVID-19 supply
chain–closing the gap between research findings and industry practice. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40(4), 341–355.
Rossiter, J. R. (2008). Content validity of measures of abstract constructs in management
and organizational research. British Journal of Management, 19(4), 380–388.
Saldanha, J. P., Mello, J. E., Knemeyer, A. M., & Vijayaraghavan, T. A. S. (2015).
Implementing supply chain technologies in emerging markets: An institutional
theory perspective. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(1), 5–26.
Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive
advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic
Management Journal, 35(2), 179–203.
Schoemaker, P. J., Heaton, S., & Teece, D. (2018). Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and
leadership. California Management Review, 61(1), 15–42.
Schryen, G. (2013). Revisiting IS business value research: What we already know, what
we still need to know, and how we can get there. European Journal of Information
Systems, 22(2), 139–169.
Shao, Z. (2019). Interaction effect of strategic leadership behaviors and organizational
culture on IS-Business strategic alignment and Enterprise Systems assimilation.
International Journal of Information Management, 44, 96–108.
Sila, I. (2007). Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance
through the lens of organizational theories: An empirical study. Journal of Operations
Management, 25(1), 83–109.
11
International Journal of Information Management 59 (2021) 102344
Singh, P. J., Power, D., & Chuong, S. C. (2011). A resource dependence theory
perspective of ISO 9000 in managing organizational environment. Journal of
Operations Management, 29(1-2), 49–64.
Srinivasan, R., & Swink, M. (2018). An investigation of visibility and flexibility as
complements to supply chain analytics: An organizational information processing
theory perspective. Production and Operations Management, 27(10), 1849–1867.
Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt
interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, 27(1),
19–49.
The State of BI and Business Analytics Report (2020). https://www.sisense.com/en-gb/
whitepapers/state-of-bi-analytics-report-2020/ (Date of access 13th October, 2020).
Tian, X., Chiong, R., Martin, B., Stockdale, R., Arefin, M. S., Hoque, M. R., … Bao, Y.
(2015). The impact of business intelligence on organization’s effectiveness: An
empirical study. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 17(3), 263–285.
Wagner, S. M., & Kemmerling, R. (2010). Handling nonresponse in logistics research.
Journal of Business Logistics, 31(2), 357–381.
Wang, H. C. (2014). Distinguishing the adoption of business intelligence systems from
their implementation: The role of managers’ personality profiles. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 33(10), 1082–1092.
Wendorf, C. A. (2002). Comparisons of structural equation modeling and hierarchical
linear modeling approaches to couples’ data. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1),
126–140.
Williams, M. D., Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., & Schwarz, A. (2009). Contemporary trends and
issues in IT adoption and diffusion research. Journal of Information Technology, 24(1),
1–10.
Yang, F., Huang, X., & Wu, L. (2019). Experiencing meaningfulness climate in teams:
How spiritual leadership enhances team effectiveness when facing uncertain tasks.
Human Resource Management, 58(2), 155–168.
Ye, F., Zhao, X., Prahinski, C., & Li, Y. (2013). The impact of institutional pressures, top
managers’ posture and reverse logistics on performance—Evidence from China.
International Journal of Production Economics, 143, 132–143.
Zhang, C., & Dhaliwal, J. (2009). An investigation of resource-based and institutional
theoretic factors in technology adoption for operations and supply chain
management. International Journal of Production Economics, 120(1), 252–269.
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., & Xu, S. (2006). The process of innovation assimilation by firms
in different countries: A technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Management
Science, 52(10), 1557–1576.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K.-H. (2013). Institutional-based antecedents and performance
outcomes of internal and external green supply chain management practices. Journal
of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19(2), 106–117.
Zmud, R. W., & Apple, L. E. (1992). Measuring technology incorporation/infusion. The
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(2), 148–155.
Zuo, M., Ma, D., & Yu, Y. (2020). Contextual determinants of IT governance mechanism
formulation for senior care services in local governments. International Journal of
Information Management, 53, Article 102125.